What if there's a law that required you to meet a certain income requirement b4 having a baby?

[sswingle]

Put something in the water so people cant have kids? That sounds so familiar....like a book I've read, or a Sci-Fi tv show...

I'll be trying to remember all day now!

 

[Bateluer]

Wouldn't work, neither would personality screening.

The 'less than perfect' personality of parents is responsible for shaping some of the greatest artists, writers, scientists, etc every known, which 'advances the species', as one poster put it.

Yes, having children drains people's money. Yes, people shouldn't have a dozen kids on a 20k a year income.

Imperfections move society and the species forward as much as ideal situations.

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
I hope you're being fvcking facetious. You guys are fvcking scary at times. I bet you all grow your little prepubescent mustaches in neat little squares over summer vacation because you think it looks cool. :shiver;


And is it not the ultimate irony that the OP's signature accuses the Bush administration of wanting a rule us based on what they think is right, instead of by our rights and freedoms?

 

[Homerboy]

You know the rules that are required in order to adopt a child in the united states? Yea, thats what it should be to have kids.. The adoption agencies have it figured out, and what ever income they've set it at, is likely the best income or at least minimum needed to have a child.

PFFFT that argument is beyond stupid (as is this entire thread/idea)
I know many MANY people that live very VERY simple lives and ahve 2+ kids and are perfectly happy and self-substainable (in fact 2 of them send their children to private schools). I also know people that make gobs and gobs of money, spend 25% more than they make are living like Kings, only oweing everyone piles of money. Now which way is the right way? Which one of these groups is "allowed" to have babies set forth by some line in the sand?

HOrribly stupid arguement.

$$$ doesn't define your right to have children. By suggesting so, or agreeing to such, it only shows exactly how materialistic and $$ centered you are. Now common-sense and maturity... thats a different story.

 

[Homerboy]

And is it not the ultimate irony that the OP's signature accuses the Bush administration of wanting a rule us based on what they think is right, instead of by our rights and freedoms?

HAHA didn't even catch that. BRILLIANT. Go back to social-studies class OP.

 

[Regs]

I believe the human race wouldn't make it too far. To many conflicts.

So if your saying if we have a bad recession or even a depression in our economy we all have to stop reproducing?

I wouldn't even consider this a socialistic political view. More of the lines of Hitler reborn.

 

[lokiju]

Then we wouldn't be living in "The land of the free"

 

[yllus]

It'd mean illegal babies. No power on this Earth can stop humans from procreating willy-nilly.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Originally posted by: JEDI
ie:
When you goto public school, your gota show your immunzation shots b4 attending. why not just add birth control shots that last a year to that list?

Or add some sort of liquid birth control to the water, like floride?

And when you're ready to have a baby, fill out the forms to prove that you can financially raise one, and the govt sends you a pill that reverses the effects.

No more class warfare between the haves and have nots because there will be no more poor!??!?!?!?!?!?!!?

ever hear of socialism? China does this, but not having to do w/ $...population control. How much more of our freedom would you take away from us, current Federal and some state laws already limit our actual freedom.

let me ask you this, during world history class, did you agree with communist leaders?

 

[Homerboy]

let me ask you this, during world history class, did you agree with communist leaders?

whoah whoah whoah... that's highschool level stuff. Give him a few years.

 

[sourceninja]

Having a sister and a sister in law who seem to not understand that sex = babies has made me of the opinon that it should work like this.

If you have a baby, that's fine, welfare will help. But if you get pregnant while on welfare you should be forced to either give up welfare, or get your tubes tied after you have the second child.

My sister is on her second kid from a second father unmarried, with no job, smokes and drinks like a fish. My sister in law is on her third kid, 3rd father, no job, lives with her mother, steals, drinks, and smokes pot, this is her 3rd child and she has had 3 miscarriges. If you can afford smokes, you can afford a condom.

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: Homerboy

You know the rules that are required in order to adopt a child in the united states? Yea, thats what it should be to have kids.. The adoption agencies have it figured out, and what ever income they've set it at, is likely the best income or at least minimum needed to have a child.

PFFFT that argument is beyond stupid (as is this entire thread/idea)
I know many MANY people that live very VERY simple lives and ahve 2+ kids and are perfectly happy and self-substainable (in fact 2 of them send their children to private schools). I also know people that make gobs and gobs of money, spend 25% more than they make are living like Kings, only oweing everyone piles of money. Now which way is the right way? Which one of these groups is "allowed" to have babies set forth by some line in the sand?

HOrribly stupid arguement.

$$$ doesn't define your right to have children. By suggesting so, or agreeing to such, it only shows exactly how materialistic and $$ centered you are. Now common-sense and maturity... thats a different story.

PFFT!!!1!!1!!11111!1 A person with no money is going to have a higher likelyhood of not being able to support kids than one with 'gobs and gobs' of money. What ever child adoption agencies do in the screening process (I'm sure they don't only look at income) is how it should be for people who want to have children.

 

[ch33zw1z]

So who will fund this agency that polices freewill?

 

[Chaotic42]

If poor people had never had children, there would be no rich people.

 

[FoBoT]

:laugh:

i nominate JEDI for maroon of the year

 

[ch33zw1z]

This entire idea is just crazy, I'm really sick of everyone loving our "free" country and then endorsing the degradation of our basic "free" rights. It's like they don't read the ****** CONSTITUTION that this "free" country is founded on and continue to vote to create laws that don't make sense. ok, back to class...

 

[marvdmartian]

Calm down, ch33zw1z. Crack open a :beer: and enhance your chi already, before ya bust a vein, would ya?

Jedi, so I'm figuring that this idea was the best you could come up with the ensure that you get to meet the Reverend Jesse Jackson in your lifetime? Cuz if you started speaking publicly about this idea of yours, I'm pretty sure you'd be Jesse's new bestest friend!! :laugh:

 

[Nerva]

Originally posted by: Sqube
You really think it's having children that's making people poor?

Fascinating. I'd love to subscribe to your newsletter.

its not unrelated? poor people have more babies to get govt subsidies...

i actually kind of like that idea.

 

[GasX]

Income is not the issue. Stupidity is the issue.

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: yllus
It'd mean illegal babies. No power on this Earth can stop humans from procreating willy-nilly.

For anyone endorsing the OP's philosophy, "euthanizing" illegal babies or taking them from the poor and giving them to rich people who can't have kids would be the next logical step.

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: Mwilding
Income is not the issue. Stupidity is the issue.

True to a point, but I know some alot of stupid parents that end up having brillant children. I realize this however is not the norm.


Ausm

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: yllus
It'd mean illegal babies. No power on this Earth can stop humans from procreating willy-nilly.

I'm pretty sure Dr. Breen pulled it off at one point...:Q

*grabs a crowbar*

 

[waggy]

TO be honest i would love to see a standard put in place. NOT how much money you make but maybe passing a parenting class or such. When my wife was pregnant with baby #1 i went to a few diffrent classes. One was just for new dads. I also took a 1st aid class that included infants.

I think when someone is pregnant they should have to take some basic classes.

 

[fbrdphreak]

Originally posted by: HotChic
1. Forced birth control is an ethical issue in many ways. In many religions, some forms of birth control are considered immoral. In a few religions, birth control all together is forbidden.

2. How do you decide what the acceptable level of income is to raise a child? You can live on a few thousand a year if you make certain life decisions. Is income sufficient to buy food and a roof enough? Or do you require cable?

3. You would have to dictate how income is spent. A family that earns more might meet the requirement, but what if they spend all their cash on non-child related things? The child may not get the benefit of the income.

Those are just a few basic reasons this idea sucks. Government control is already too great on too many things. The idea of freedom obviously doesn't ring too true with you.

And then you'll turn around and complain that the government is wasting a ton of money on welfare and medicaid/medicare (whichever goes to poor people). Not saying the OP's solution is the way to go, but what will it take for people to realize you can't use the gov't as a crutch just because you suck at life, pop out babies, and can't make a damn dime. So people like you and me (assuming you have a worthwhile job) pay for their fvck ups, so they can worthless, lazy dregs on society.

Requiring approval to have children sounds good to me. (Yes I know there are a ton of problems to going with that route and blablablabla, my point is too many people in this country take their situation for granted and everyone else has to pay for it.)

 

[fbrdphreak]

Originally posted by: goku
You know the rules that are required in order to adopt a child in the united states? Yea, thats what it should be to have kids.. The adoption agencies have it figured out, and what ever income they've set it at, is likely the best income or at least minimum needed to have a child.

I like where you're going